In a NewsMax story published yesterday, David Keene - longtime chairman of the American Conservative Union (ACU) - warned of the liberal media’s embrace of John McCain. Along those lines, please note that on Friday, the liberal Los Angeles Times editorial page joined the liberal New York Times editorial page in endorsing McCain. Then consider these scary words of advice from the dean of liberal columnists, David Broder of the Washington Post…
“If the Republican Party really wanted to hold on to the White House in 2009…it would grit its teeth, swallow its doubts and nominate a ticket of John McCain for president and Mike Huckabee for vice president - and president-in-waiting.”
Are Republicans really going to nominate the candidate of David Broder, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times? Have they lost their collective minds?
One last point. A friend pointed out to me over the weekend that John McCain has an 82 lifetime rating with the American Conservative Union (ACU). However, McCain only has an 82 thanks to being far more conservative in his early congressional career. Do you know what his ACU score was last year? 60.
John McCain has moved considerably and steadily leftward in recent years. Is that really the direction the GOP wants to travel? Didn’t they learn anything from last year’s congressional losses thanks to conservative voters saying, emphatically, “Enough!”?
When you have true hard-core, card-carrying, in-the-trenches conservative leaders saying they’d never vote for a certain GOP presidential candidate - and the same guy gets the nod from the most anti-Republican/anti-conservative newspapers and journalists in the country - isn’t it time to call a time-out and think twice? Or three times?
Think about it. Before it’s too late.
Posted on February 4th, 2008 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: National
But but but!!!! The polls show McCain having the best shot against Hillary!
Who ARE these people that they’re polling ?? I haven’t met one conservative who is willing to vote for McCain. And heaven help the Republicans if their whipping horse Hillary doesn’t get the nod. Do they seriously think McCain can beat Obama???
If the nominees are McCain/Clinton, I’ll again vote third party in 2008. I mean, if those are the choices, is there REALLY any difference?
(And for anyone who uses the old ‘what about the Supreme Court argument, puhleeze. As if John McCain would nominate constitutionalist judges. - Gang of 14, McCain/Feingold - It won’t matter if it’s McCain or Hillary. McCain will nominate judges he can “get” through the Democratic Senate and judges who will uphold his pet legislation.)
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/04/john-mccain-la-razas-voice-in-washington/
Martina;
What do you think constitutes a”constitutionalist judge”, and are you sure that is what you want in a USSC Justice?
Scalia and Thomas believe that your citizen rights are deliniated in the Constitution. And, both have expressly stated that the Bill of Rights only applies to Federally controlled issues; the states are not bound by them. The constitutional constructionist believe that a state could control what your doctor tells you about birth control pills. Too, since the Bill of Rights applies to only federal government action, states are free to esablish religion, limit speech, forbid citizens from owning guns. Alito’s writing seems to expose himself as a constructionist.
To a constitutionist, the Constitution allowes individual rights as enumerated in the body of the Constitution, all other authority belongs to the government. Most constitutional scholars and judges believe, along with the stated position of the founding fathers, that the constitution puts restrictions on the government and not on the people.
Scalia and Thomas (Alito, too perhaps), believe that there is no constitutional issues regarding ANYTHING not written into the constitution. They could never hear a case that had to do with energy companies, telephone companies, electricity, the right of women to vote or hold office. Blacks? You remember the 7/10 compromise, right?
All of these judges stated in senate testimony that they believe in ’stare decisis’, but just overtuned a ninety-one year old precedent. As Justice Souter said fromthe bench on June 29, 2007, “never has so much been changed so fast by so few.”
Be careful what you wish for….talk about activist judges!
Dennis, I’m a firm believer in states rights. If your state doesn’t have a bill of rights, a constitution you support, or laws you disagree with you have the right to move to a state which aligns with your beliefs.
Of course, if you disagree at a federal level, what options do you have?
I believe in the Constitution. And to “Scalia and Thomas (Alito, too perhaps), believe that there is no constitutional issues regarding ANYTHING not written into the constitution. They could never hear a case that had to do with energy companies, telephone companies, electricity, the right of women to vote or hold office. Blacks? You remember the 7/10 compromise, right?” I say AMEN!
Our framers set up a government that allow us the ability to CHANGE our Constitution … you do remember THAT, right?
The American people have become lax and ignorant with regards to federal powers and the oligarchy that the Supreme Court has been for too long.
The Constitution restrains the government, not the people. We need to get back to that understanding!
Martina,
I agree! But Thomas and Scalia belive that the constitution restrains the people and NOT the government.
As Nevada’s Declaration of Rights declares, “Sec: 20. Rights retained by people. This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.” This is the thrust of the federal constitution, T&S don’t believe it does, nor do they abide by the 14th ammendment (even when the constitution is changed, in this case 140 years ago, there are some who won’t believe and obey.